Comment by fnord123
1 day ago
> "Sorry, having some tracking is the condition to get this free content. Accept or don't."
The law that caused the cookie banners also says companies cannot block access to the site if the cookies are not required for the functioning of the site.
Some German news sites have broken this and have "accept or pay" and I think this leaked to news sites in other countries. Facebook even tried it.
So, sure, if DNT is true, try to make people pay. Fine by me.
> Some German news sites have broken this and have "accept or pay" and I think this leaked to news sites in other countries. Facebook even tried it.
One annoying example: Golem. Some people in my circles sometimes share a Golem link every now and then. I don't even click them any longer.
The most annoying thing about that is not even the "accept or pay" banners. There are more:
- even if you accept the tracking, you might still not be able to read the article, because while the site may be free in principle if you accept ads, that specific article is not.
- and the most annoying thing is that such paywalled articles show up on Google News. Not sure if they're tricking Google into showing them (by showing the full article to search crawlers, but the paywall to actual users), or if this is some understanding between Google and EU news providers, but it's annoying...
Speaking of the news-type sites you bring up:
I hate all these patterns too, but interestingly it feels like I hate it more because the whole Internet has been designed around the "free to read with ads" paradigm -- we've been taught that if you can see something, get the URL and share it, so that others can reference the thing you're trying to either comment on or raise awareness about.
With paper newspapers or magazines it wasn't ever a problem, because if I subscribed to the Dallas Morning News, I automatically got all their articles, and even stories that weren't local to Dallas were covered by them too. I didn't need a subscription to the San Francisco Chronicle and didn't miss it.
Today, if someone is reading an article in the Chronicle, or even the Verge, it's a huge problem for them to share it with someone else even if the other person actually pays for subscriptions to say, NY Times and Bloomberg. Even if all four of those publications each have articles just summarizing the same 5 bullet points.
I'd blame the "news" industry as a whole for not implementing some kinds of reciprocal agreements. Even giant news conglomerates like Media News Group[1] who publish dozens of major US papers don't give you a simple subscription that at least covers all their own properties. I'd argue that they should try harder to stand up some shared subscription services with heavy reciprocal benefits and revenue sharing, so that most people would be able to read most paywalled articles with one monthly subscription. That industry has no one to blame but themselves for not figuring this one out.
[1] https://www.medianewsgroup.com/about-us/
I don't think the web (I think you mean web, not Internet, but that's hair splitting maybe) has been "designed around around the 'free to read with ads' paradigm". It has been designed around hypertext and putting information online. Ads is just one cancer that has befallen the web a long time ago.